BHIMSEN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THE petitioners have been charge sheeted under Sec. 436/34 of the IPC on the allegation that at about 3.00 A.M. in the night of 18/19.12.2005 they set fire to the dwelling house of the informant Bhaskar Jena, as a result of which the roof of the house got gutted and the informant hearing the barking sound of the dog got up and found these petitioners running away. Subsequently, other people joined the complainant are extinguished the fire. FIR was lodged and the police investigated the matter after registering Pipili P.S.Case No. 343 of 2005 dated 19.12.2005 under Sec. 436/34 of IPC and submitted charge sheet on which the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili passed order on 3.5.2006 taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 436, IPC against these three petitioners.

(3.) FROM the aforementioned factual aspects which are before me and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, I find that there is absolutely no material for submission of the charge sheet under Sec. 436, IPC against these petitioners implicating them as accused in G.R.Case No. 462 of 2005 corresponding to Pipili P.S.Case No. 343 of 2005.